Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[thanatos144]

The Democrat south tried and failed to destroy the country. Because of that now only a moron sees session as a viable solution to anything unless he wants to start a war.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lincoln destroyed the country. Secession doesn't "destroy" anything other than a legal fiction.

Like I said you are a bona fide moron

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

That's about the only argument you have.

That isn't a argument that is a statement of fact.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Your logic is stunning!

Like I said it is a statement of fact. Which word is to big for you to understand?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln destroyed the country. Secession doesn't "destroy" anything other than a legal fiction.

Like I said you are a bona fide moron

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

That's about the only argument you have.

That isn't a argument that is a statement of fact.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Your logic is stunning!

Like I said it is a statement of fact. Which word is to big for you to understand?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

ROFL! Here's a "statement of fact," for you: you're a jackass.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Suppose the Supreme Court declared secession legal? In fact suppose the Court declared a county could secede from a state a city from a county, and a personal lot from a subdivision, would that improve things?

Since secession is not mentioned in the constitution, the federal courts have no authority to concern themselves with it.. THINK

 

[bripat9643]

Suppose the Supreme Court declared secession legal? In fact suppose the Court declared a county could secede from a state a city from a county, and a personal lot from a subdivision, would that improve things?

Since secession is not mentioned in the constitution, the federal courts have no authority to concern themselves with it.. THINK

The same goes for gay marriage. However, the court never fears to tread where it has no business going.

 

[thanatos144]

Suppose the Supreme Court declared secession legal? In fact suppose the Court declared a county could secede from a state a city from a county, and a personal lot from a subdivision, would that improve things?

Since secession is not mentioned in the constitution, the federal courts have no authority to concern themselves with it.. THINK

The same goes for gay marriage. However, the court never fears to tread where it has no business going.

Yep like Dred Scott the decision that was in favor of your democrat heroes

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Since secession is not mentioned in the constitution, the federal courts have no authority to concern themselves with it.. THINK

The same goes for gay marriage. However, the court never fears to tread where it has no business going.

Fact is nearly everything the feds do, they are not allowed to do. That's what the tenth amendment means. Almost all issues are supposed to be handled by the states and the states need to say that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

^^^
Not proof.

So the constitution isn't proof.

Your statement is not proof of your claim.
You have no hope of proving that the "powers" reserved to the state and/or the people by 10th amendment refer exclusively to the power to make laws and regulations.
You know this.

Except that is the whole fucking reason for the constitution to tell us what limits on laws and regulations the government has....... common sense

^^^
Not proof

That's the equivlent of sticking your fingers in your ears so the truth can't get in

No. Its telling you that your response does not prove your claim.
You have no hope of proving that the "powers" reserved to the state and/or the people by 10th amendment refer exclusively to the power to make laws and regulations.
You know this

 

[thanatos144]

So the constitution isn't proof.

Your statement is not proof of your claim.
You have no hope of proving that the "powers" reserved to the state and/or the people by 10th amendment refer exclusively to the power to make laws and regulations.
You know this.

Except that is the whole fucking reason for the constitution to tell us what limits on laws and regulations the government has....... common sense

^^^
Not proof

That's the equivlent of sticking your fingers in your ears so the truth can't get in

No. Its telling you that your response does not prove your claim.
You have no hope of proving that the "powers" reserved to the state and/or the people by 10th amendment refer exclusively to the power to make laws and regulations.
You know this

Try to keep up any doubt about the legality and intelligence of secession was shown in the negative by the action of democrats when they threw thier fit and started a war to have slaves in the new territory. The rest is moot

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your statement is not proof of your claim.
You have no hope of proving that the "powers" reserved to the state and/or the people by 10th amendment refer exclusively to the power to make laws and regulations.
You know this.

Except that is the whole fucking reason for the constitution to tell us what limits on laws and regulations the government has....... common sense

^^^
Not proof

That's the equivlent of sticking your fingers in your ears so the truth can't get in

No. Its telling you that your response does not prove your claim.
You have no hope of proving that the "powers" reserved to the state and/or the people by 10th amendment refer exclusively to the power to make laws and regulations.
You know this

Try to keep up any doubt about the legality and intelligence of secession was shown in the negative by the action of democrats when they threw thier fit and started a war to have slaves in the new territory. The rest is moot

^^^
Not proof

 

[thanatos144]

Except that is the whole fucking reason for the constitution to tell us what limits on laws and regulations the government has....... common sense

^^^
Not proof

That's the equivlent of sticking your fingers in your ears so the truth can't get in

No. Its telling you that your response does not prove your claim.
You have no hope of proving that the "powers" reserved to the state and/or the people by 10th amendment refer exclusively to the power to make laws and regulations.
You know this

Try to keep up any doubt about the legality and intelligence of secession was shown in the negative by the action of democrats when they threw thier fit and started a war to have slaves in the new territory. The rest is moot

^^^
Not proof

Absolutely it is historical proof .

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[M14 Shooter]

^^^
Not proof

That's the equivlent of sticking your fingers in your ears so the truth can't get in

No. Its telling you that your response does not prove your claim.
You have no hope of proving that the "powers" reserved to the state and/or the people by 10th amendment refer exclusively to the power to make laws and regulations.
You know this

Try to keep up any doubt about the legality and intelligence of secession was shown in the negative by the action of democrats when they threw thier fit and started a war to have slaves in the new territory. The rest is moot

^^^
Not proof

Absolutely it is historical proof .

I accept your concession of the point.

 

[there4eyeM]

Suppose the Supreme Court declared secession legal? In fact suppose the Court declared a county could secede from a state a city from a county, and a personal lot from a subdivision, would that improve things?

Since secession is not mentioned in the constitution, the federal courts have no authority to concern themselves with it.. THINK

Of course secession is not mentioned. There was no need, as the Union was clearly to be Perpetual.

 

[thanatos144]

That's the equivlent of sticking your fingers in your ears so the truth can't get in

No. Its telling you that your response does not prove your claim.
You have no hope of proving that the "powers" reserved to the state and/or the people by 10th amendment refer exclusively to the power to make laws and regulations.
You know this

Try to keep up any doubt about the legality and intelligence of secession was shown in the negative by the action of democrats when they threw thier fit and started a war to have slaves in the new territory. The rest is moot

^^^
Not proof

Absolutely it is historical proof .

I accept your concession of the point.

I don't concede to any point since you don't have one

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. Its telling you that your response does not prove your claim.
You have no hope of proving that the "powers" reserved to the state and/or the people by 10th amendment refer exclusively to the power to make laws and regulations.
You know this

Try to keep up any doubt about the legality and intelligence of secession was shown in the negative by the action of democrats when they threw thier fit and started a war to have slaves in the new territory. The rest is moot

^^^
Not proof

Absolutely it is historical proof .

I accept your concession of the point.

I don't concede to any point since you don't have one

^^
A lie, on both points.
You made a claim; you have done nothing to soundly support it. Game over.

 

[thanatos144]

Try to keep up any doubt about the legality and intelligence of secession was shown in the negative by the action of democrats when they threw thier fit and started a war to have slaves in the new territory. The rest is moot

^^^
Not proof

Absolutely it is historical proof .

I accept your concession of the point.

I don't concede to any point since you don't have one

^^
A lie, on both points.
You made a claim; you have done nothing to soundly support it. Game over.

I have consistently done so . You ignoring it doesn't make it go away

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Wyatt earp]

Suppose the Supreme Court declared secession legal? In fact suppose the Court declared a county could secede from a state a city from a county, and a personal lot from a subdivision, would that improve things?

Since secession is not mentioned in the constitution, the federal courts have no authority to concern themselves with it.. THINK

Of course secession is not mentioned. There was no need, as the Union was clearly to be Perpetual.

Their was only 13 states then.

 

[M14 Shooter]

^^^
Not proof

Absolutely it is historical proof .

I accept your concession of the point.

I don't concede to any point since you don't have one

^^
A lie, on both points.
You made a claim; you have done nothing to soundly support it. Game over.

I have consistently done so . You ignoring it doesn't make it go away

I see. Do you lie to your kids like this?

 

[regent]

Suppose the Supreme Court declared secession legal? In fact suppose the Court declared a county could secede from a state a city from a county, and a personal lot from a subdivision, would that improve things?

Since secession is not mentioned in the constitution, the federal courts have no authority to concern themselves with it.. THINK

Of course secession is not mentioned. There was no need, as the Union was clearly to be Perpetual.[/
QUOTE] Their was only 13 states then.

Yep and there's only fifty states now.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Since secession is not mentioned in the constitution, the federal courts have no authority to concern themselves with it.. THINK

Of course secession is not mentioned. There was no need, as the Union was clearly to be Perpetual.

HAHAHA. Why would anyone think the union was perpetual??? Just a few years before the founders had fought a war to secede from england. That was not perpetual. THINK

 

[Redfish]

Did the signers of the declaration of independence commit treason against England and King George? I'm sure the english considered it treason, but the founders considered it founding a new nation. What you call it depends on where you sit and whether you win or lose.